The Editorial Board thanks you for agreeing to act as a reviewer for APEX. The quality of the journal relies on the expertise of the reviewers and their reports, and we highly appreciate your time and effort.
It is important that you let us know as soon as possible whether you will be able to review the article within seven days after receiving of the manuscript. If you are unable to accept this task, please inform us immediately so that the review process is not delayed. In this case, it would be very helpful to the editors if you could suggest alternative expert scientists who could review the article.
For the evaluation of the article, a reviewer’s report form is provided by our online reviewing system for you to fill in, which deals with the appropriateness of the presentation and scientific quality of the article. Please provide your evaluation in each section of the form, as explained below, so that the editor can choose to either approve the publication of the article or return the manuscript to the authors for minor revision (only once in principle).
Reviewers should objectively judge the quality of the manuscript and refrain from subjective personalized criticism of the authors. The identity of the reviewer is strictly confidential. You are asked not to send the reviewer’s report directly to the authors, nor disclose your identity before the publication of the article. A reviewer is expected to act promptly for timely publications of APEX. Submission of the reviewer’s report by the suggested deadline is essential.to top
Guideline for reviewers: Letters
Letters are brief original papers reporting highly timely and novel research results, which have sufficiently strong impact in the relevant fields and society to merit priority handling in the review and publication processes. The maximum length of the paper is three pages. (For any manuscript submitted on or after January 1 2013, the page limit of an APEX paper will be four printed pages.)
Since prompt publication is of primary importance for APEX, your prompt evaluation is greatly appreciated. Moreover, it is important in writing your reviewer’s report to address whether the content of the article justifies accelerated publication in APEX.
In your reviewer’s report, please evaluate the following key points:
1. Article quality rating
1.1 Impact and timeliness: Does the article have significant scientific/technological impact and timeliness, which attract the interest of researchers in the field of applied physics?
1.2 Novelty and originality: Is the article novel and original? Does the article contain material that is new or significantly adds to knowledge already published?
1.3 Presentation: Is the presentation of the article, which includes the organization, logical consistency, English language, etc., appropriate? Are adequate and sufficient references covered? Letters typically have approximately 20 references.
2. Overall rating and recommendation
2.1 Summary of reviewer’s ratings: The result of reviewer’s rating is summarized.
2.2 Recommendation: Provide the reviewer’s opinion on the acceptability of the article by choosing one of the following:
(1) The article may be accepted for publication with/without English correction.
(2) The article may become acceptable after minor revisions of content and/or English presentation by referring to the reviewer’s comments.
Note: If you think major revisions are necessary, please recommend rejection.
(3) The article may be rejected.
3. Reviewer’s remarks to the authors
Please provide comments and suggestions constructive and useful for the authors to improve the scientific quality and presentation of the article. If you are submitting a reviewer’s report to reject the article, you are asked to provide the reasons for rejection. Those comments are sent to the authors. In order to ensure prompt publication of APEX papers, we intend to limit the authors’ manuscript in a minor revision and to only once. Papers that you think will require major revisions or more than two turnarounds between the author and the editor should be rejected.
4. Reviewer’s confidential remarks to the editor
Those comments are sent to the editor responsible for the review of the article, not to the authors.
4.1 Importance of the article: If you recommend "publish," please concisely describe the background and novelty/importance of the present research to merit its publication in the journal. If you recommend "reject," please provide the reasons.
4.2 Other comments: Please provide additional information, if any, in relation with the evaluation of the article.
Guidelines for reviewers: Comments and Replies
Reader’s comments on an original paper published in APEX and author’s reply to the comments may be published. Comments are expected to be published together with the corresponding reply when available. The length for each should be within two printed pages. Assessment of comments and replies should be based on the scientific importance and interest to the journal’s readers.